By 
Alleged Islamic State (also known as Isis) recruiter and funder Abdella Abadiga was allegedly kidnapped in Johannesburg in 2022.
His brother, Abdurahim Abadiga, alleges that the SA National Defence Force (SANDF) kidnapped Abadiga after he saw CCTV footage and sought an urgent application to have the SANDF reveal where Abadiga was and to release him. The SANDF has denied any knowledge of this.
On Friday last week, the high court in Johannesburg struck the matter from the roll, due to lack of urgency.
The US treasury placed Abadiga on a sanctions list in 2022, for allegedly securing finances for the terror organisation Isis, by using SA banks and other financial institutions.
Abadiga’s last known whereabouts was the Mall of Africa, in Johannesburg. His brother filed a missing person’s report and also obtained CCTV footage from the mall.
Abdurahim Abadiga’s case is that footage showed Abadiga and his bodyguard attempting to exit the mall by paying for a parking ticket. However, they left only four hours later, driving in between vehicles linked to the SANDF, which had parked on the same parking level as Abadiga’s vehicle. Also, a member of the SANDF was seen in the mall footage paying for various parking tickets hours later (which the SANDF acknowledged).
The SANDF did not deny its presence at the mall and driving the vehicles identified. However, the SANDF told the court its members’ attendance at the mall was to conduct a training exercise, which it said was performed from time to time to provide SANDF members with intimate knowledge of the mall’s surroundings, to develop a rescue plan in cases of emergencies. Mall management, the SANDF said, did not know about the exercise.
The SANDF, in court, raised two preliminary points of law that, if the court accepted, would result in Abdurahim Abadiga’s case being dismissed. This can be done without even getting into the merits of either side.
The first preliminary point the SANDF raised had to do with Abdurahim Abadiga’s legal standing. The SANDF argued that Abadiga’s brother gave conflicting outlines of who he was in two affidavits. But Gauteng high court judge Edwin Molahlehi found no merit in this argument. “It has not been disputed that the applicant is the brother of Mr Abadiga,” he said.
The second preliminary point raised by the SANDF had to do with urgency. The SANDF argued the application had been delayed in instituting proceedings and had not explained why.
The SANDF argued that it took nearly three months for Abadiga’s brother to file papers after the abduction and filing a missing person’s report. His filing the report meant he was obviously aware of his brother’s absence.
“The applicant is silent in his founding affidavit about the reason for this delay,” wrote Molahlehi. “The explanation by the applicant’s counsel … was because the applicant had to investigate and verify the facts related to the abduction.”
However, Molahlehi was unmoved by this. “[It] does not assist the case of the applicant because that does not satisfy the requirement in motion proceedings that the applicant has to make his or her case in the founding affidavit.”
Abdurahim Abadiga had enrolled the matter in March but had not re-enrolled it any time soon thereafter. This further showed lack of urgency.
Molahlehi also noted that, “the applicant failed … to explain why he cannot be afforded substantial redress in the normal course”.
As a result, Molahlehi, without getting into the merits of the case, struck the matter from the roll for lack of urgency. Abdurahim Abadiga was ordered to pay the SANDF’s costs.
Comments